I have been administering a course in graduating from scientology for the past couple months. While doing so, I have been writing and sharing with students the chapters of an in progress book on the subject. I recently added an introduction to the course/book as I recognized it required a further undercut. I am publishing that introduction in three parts here as it might serve to spark productive thought and discussion.
A course in graduating from scientology
Introduction – Part I
One of the most difficult traps that scientology creates for minds is that of creating an arrogant sense of certainty in the member. It is ultimately the ceiling that keeps people beholden to scientology, afraid to explore outside of it, and thus serves to entrap them within its own limitations. What makes it so binding for scientologists is that they are taught that such an attitude has that effect at the outset of their studies. That is, the first barrier to learning is the student thinking he already knows it. Scientologists apparently never think that the datum might apply once they had learned all there was to know about the subject that taught them that very datum. That type of tricky dichotomy is peppered throughout the subject. It is one thing that makes reasoning, discussion or debate on scientology so confounding. A scientologist is only permitted to view the subject within the parameters of its own nomenclature, constructs and logic. He must never permit the thought to enter his own mind, ‘is there more to life than I have been instructed?’
As we shall see as we progress, scientology is finite. It consists of the words of one man who wrote and lectured on the subject between the years 1950 and 1986. By firm policy scientology enforces the notion that those thirty-six years of observations by one man are all that need be known on the mind and spirit and a host of other subjects. It even instills the idea that to think or explore outside of the box of Hubbard words is dangerous. In the book Power vs. Force David R. Hawkins succinctly described how such mental mechanics generally obtain:
The truth of each level of consciousness is self-verifying in that each level has its native range of perception, which confirms what’s already believed to be true. Thus, everyone feels justified in the viewpoints that underlie his actions and beliefs.
Presumably, the reader has to some degree shaken the scientology tenet that if it isn’t written or spoken by L. Ron Hubbard it is not true nor worth knowing. Otherwise, why would you even pick up a book entitled Graduating from scientology? Nonetheless, in my experience the notion of fully self-contained infallibility is so heavily implanted with scientologists that it tends to come off in stages or layers. It is common for scientologists, and even former scientologists, to continue to weigh any new data they encounter on the mind and spirit against a hidden standard, ‘how does it measure up against what scientology holds?’ Measuring up is not the problem. Our course of exploration is all about comparing and contextualizing scientology indoctrinations. It is a virtual exercise in Hubbard’s Logic 8: a datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude. The problem arises when your mind is trained to work on an automatic default (read thought stopping) where any data, no matter how vital and workable, is discredited and discarded to the degree it does not agree with one’s scientology indoctrination. Scientologists come to know about scientology and in the process are convinced that they know all there is to know.
That is a perfectly normal state of affairs for a monotheistic religious belief system. For those seeking the comfort and security that type of system lends to adherents, you would be well advised to drop this book right about now. This course of exploration is for those who never signed up for such when they embarked on scientology study. This exploration is for those who got involved in scientology from the beginning as part of a search for truth, wisdom, and enlightenment.
I disagree with your implication that people who are not negative regarding scientology are incapable of thinking outside its constructs.
I think the ideas in the course that you have previewed on your blog are very appropriate, Marty. Your course sounds like a very constructive, productive and positive way to graduate from Scientology.
You and Mike Rinder and others who have escaped Scientology and emerged onto the Internet in the last few years, are creating a much more positive and constructive space for people to make sense of what happened to them in Scientology, and to move on down the road from it.
It is kind of astounding, but still makes a lot of sense, that those who were the most steeped in the cruelty and viciousness of Int Base should come out and know the importance of creating a kind environment in which people could move on from Scientology.
The battle used to be one of cruelty, where you got really good at thinking up the most vicious posts on message boards that you could which would belittle or destroy the credibility of your challenger. That was the necessary skill because that was the nature of the battlefield where OSA fought covert and dirty wars against anyone who would discuss Scientology on the Internet.
There are still old world places on the post-Scientology Internet where cruelty poisons the atmosphere of the discussion of Scientology. I can’t tell you how grateful I am to you and to others for having the wisdom and tolerance, and the generosity of spirit, to move beyond that.
You are creating a better post-Scientology Internet for everyone.
I’m waiting for the Golden Age of Tech version to be released, I don’t want to have to do it over and over and over again! LOL!!!
You are mocking it up.
It will always evolve, sorta like life does.
I think many people misinterpret Scientology’s strict adherence to it’s own teachings. Even Hubbard on several occasions distinguished between the technology of Dianetics and Scientology and his own opinions. I agree that the church has largely caused this by trying to make everything Hubbard ever said some sort of absolute truth. If you look at something like Keeping Scientology Working and read about stamping out of existence unworkable technology (My wording, I don’t have the original with me) and read this literally it means stamping out UNWORKABLE technology. It, unfortunately has been interpreted to mean stamping out all other technology other than Scientology. I think that may have even been its original intention but, in truth, doing so would be stupid in the extreme. As it is, when I went to Scientology I expected to learn things I didn’t know. Things that Hubbard had uniquely discovered. I didn’t expect to learn everything there ever was know on every subject there ever was from Hubbard.
Your inference is not necessarily Marty’s implication. Frankly I don’t see anything even close to that implied by the text of this article.
Michael A. Hobson
Yes, one has to compare Scientology with…
1) The time something had been written or spoken.
a) language itself. Language changes during time.
b) technical developments. Saying something in the 50ies that Einstein is wrong would be a no go. Totally out of agreement. Today it is allowed.
c) political circumstances. Telling in the US (McCarthy) that communism is not bad would result in a FBI raid.
2) Scientology had not been “indexed”…
a) you cannot study all that is written or said in one lifetime. And policy says nothing is “old” tech. So you would have to study all that you can evaluate what is usable and what is not usable. You cannot simply throw away all the talk that is not necessary.
b) many of the lectures I had listened to contain so much talk that has no use at all. He talks about his adventures or whatever. Fill talk. Just to fill the tape with words.
c) the really important stuff to study is confidential. So, there are always missing data.
Basic do and do not in Scientology…
A) Do not self audit.
Main purpose to sell auditing.
B) Do not compare with other practices. Especially hands off mysticism.
But without compare to whatever one cannot evaluate a subject.
C) Do not withhold something
Without the ability to withhold something before the auditor or the ethics officer or whoever else the mind can be very easily manipulated. The withhold mechanism is a protective mechanism.
D) Overts, clean hands make a happy life.
Yes, but without the option to do an overt or a possible overt one is paralysed. Especially if the authority can define what an overt is.
“One of the most difficult traps that scientology creates for minds is that of creating an arrogant sense of certainty in the member.”- Marty
“In all the broad universe there is no other hope for man than ourselves.”
That sociopathic arrogance is built into the woof and warp of the subject. And it is sociopathic. The more one digs in his heels and tries to solve everything with scientology, while virtually denying even the existence of a useful datum from “the wog world,” the more sociopathic he becomes.
What is scientology? It’s what L Ron Hubbard said and wrote. The good, the bad, the ugly, the pedantic, the useful, the useless, the loving, the spiteful, the constructive and the destructive. Dichotomies abound. A great deal of thought-stopping is vital to the creation of that ceiling and making it more solid.
“We are the only ones who can help.” I don’t recall, was that a Tom Cruise or L Ron Hubbard quote?
Beyond hubris. You can’t call it disingenuous, because they believe it with ferocity.
“That is a perfectly normal state of affairs for a monotheistic religious belief system. For those seeking the comfort and security that type of system lends to adherents, you would be well advised to drop this book right about now. This course of exploration is for those who never signed up for such when they embarked on scientology study. This exploration is for those who got involved in scientology from the beginning as part of a search for truth, wisdom, and enlightenment.”
Well said. Incidentally I don’t think the Church will vanish after this apocalypse, as it fills a niche for people who needs that kind of structured environment. But hopefully will reform enough so as to conform to the standards of civilized behavior.
As for me, I don’t really care what happens to the Church beyond the dismantling of its terror apparatus.
I didn’t come for the religious experience anyway, to me Scientology was a vehicle to truth, wisdom, and enlightenment, and I never really granted Hubbard and his Scientology anymore rights other than of pointing at the moon.
Unfortunately it turned out that Hubbard inserted a lot of tricks and reversals into his system, to bamboozle everybody into his own moon.
So I’m glad that a thorough deconstruction is been done here with Marty and others.
Connecting the dots and evaluating the insanity inserted into Scientology, added to the process, and deepened my understanding of reality. I gained, I did not lose by this process.
Scientology might eventually turn out to be a usable tool, when and if, all that has to be done and said about it and its Founder is openly communicated.
Life goes on.
You noted: Incidentally I don’t think the Church will vanish after this apocalypse, as it fills a niche for people who needs that kind of structured environment. I agree with your prediction. Quite evidently, the majority of current scientologists find security and comfort a far more valuable commodity than truth.
Marty, nice observation. For a long time I measured or evaluated other spiritual and philosophical material against the scientology mantle I wore internally. It took time to shed it, but its finally just another shirt on the rack. It takes time and a willingness to be humbled by the admission that I bought into and adopted scientology as infallible for my own egotistical needs and wants, as much as the negative gain the lower grade chart offered. Most of us sat at Ron’s table and ate and drank like it was the last supper. There was no evaluation of comparable data unless Ron did it for us. And now we all find ourselves “freed” , more or less. To turn against or outright dismiss the scientology material is unworkable since its mostly truths which were repackaged. It has a relative place and importance on the time track of spiritual practices. No need to deny it. But we are free to leave the material alone. I do recommend a study of where LRH got the material so one can “as-is” the genesis. I found that very useful.
Yes I noticed that too, but unfortunately that is sort of how things usually go with any spiritual system. You are providing more than enough help for Scientologists to transcend.
This Talk@Google is a fascinating one on the subject of certainty, and where it actually might come from.
If you look at certainty as a feeling, rather than a literal grasp of TRUTH, I think a person may start to make headway against the illusions which can derail your quest for ever more productive truths upon which to build a life.
A truly scientology reply. Refer to the attacker, invalidate them.
Ad Hominem rather than discussion.
Also, here is another talk which might challenge some of the certainties that Scientology instills in some of its members.
The reason I put this here is not to offend anyone, but to provide alternative information to think with after Scientology.
Thinking is not a low level activity, and it does not have to be filled with “figure-figure”.
Thinking, on the whole and especially after Scientology, is good.
This was a very good introduction and something that grabbed my attention right away. I knew I had this going on in my thoughts, and it has taken some years of living life outside the bubble to see what ELSE there is. I’ve been in that bubble all my adult life.
I didn’t feel that arrogance at first nor think that Scn had all the solutions, but somehow that started to get cultivated within me. LRH even says its A workable technology, not the only one. I think I can place the point where that backifired on me though—it’s after I was in the sea org for a while.
That was an extremely detrimental experience and what I still find myself peeling off layer by layer. This looks like it will help.
Love the fact that you are not capitalizing “scientology”.
This is a good explanation of the mindset instilled by Scientology. It does not dismiss that there is valuable information to be gained in the study of the subject. The thought stopping, occurs not due to enforcement by others, despite this being present, but by the individual himself upon some recognition in his study that is sufficiently basic to his needs that he willingly dispossesses himself of his critical thinking to concentrate solely on Scientology. I see how this occurred in myself. It was a volume issue for me. The shear volume of information Hubbard wrote in his early years contained sufficient answers for me that without realizing it I forfeited my own looking and knowingness to Hubbards methods, answers and views. This eventually became fixed without my noticed.
Undoing it can be a difficult process as one “knows” it is right. It is in fact just another Ser Fac. I am right, Scientology is right, I am a Scientologists (A=A) non Scientology is wrong and therefore, “you” are wrong if you don’t know Scientology.
Aaahh. The GPM at it’s subtle best.
I agree with what you say Marty.
Fortunatley I was able to keep my study of other philosophies while in. But I’ll admit, that it was limited to some degree.
When you say: “That is a perfectly normal state of affairs for a monotheistic religious belief system. ”
I would go a step further: any kind of belief system tends to limit people.
As soon as we become comfortable with what we know and assume that there is nothing more which could be known, we are not evolving anymore.
And because we know everything there is to be known (and of course what we know is right), everyone else who is not with us is against us.
It’s true, religions and cults can be of some help and even bring some solace and hope. All religious cults started as a spiritual process at the beginning and later “degraded” to a belief system. Superstition.
Even the SP/PTS Tech today has no real benefit to the student, as it will be turned into superstition by the surrounding terminals.
Tools turn into sacraments, techniques into rites.
Indeed there is a big difference between cultivation and cultification of the spiritual process.
You are still mocking it up.
Can you please explain what you mean by “mocking it up”? I have read that before and I don think I understand what you mean by it.
Disagreement with Einstein or any other scientist has always been allowed, 50s or not.
Einstein himself disagreed with Planck (one of the fathers of quantum mechanics) on many aspects of accepted scientific consensus of that era.
Disagreement / discussion is always part of good science.
Science only asks that you back your disagreement with evidence.
That is the difference between religion and science. One deals with unquestionable, permanent revealed truth, the other with ever-changing models based on available data. Absolute certainty of the type found in religion is alien to science.
Obsessively creating (knowingly or not) mentally.
With all due respect, I think it is important to cut a big distinction between the culture of organized Scientology and the actual development line of the insights and technical approaches that resulted in its conclusions.
Throughout his early research years, Hubbard was very aware of the actual dynamic flux of individual awareness and was leery of conclusions and fixed data. The fact that as an organized subject people have frequently fallen into the trap of using it to make others wrong is not an element of the subject proper, but of its evolved culture.
A large sector of independents and critics conflate the two, with the result that all the grime of a somewhat madcap culture discolors a valuable research line. As I recall it has always been a fundamental of the subject to test it against your own discovery and experience, and to reject that which did not pass that test. It strikes me too many observers have lost sight of that notion. Of course, it also means you should understand the propositions that you are testing–otherwise you are just dancing with paper tigers.
This quote came in my inbox today and thought it appropriate to share on this thread. It was from Neale Donald Walsch.
On this day of your life,
Jean, I believe God wants you to know…
…that there is a Chinese proverb: Great doubts deep wisdom.
Small doubts little wisdom.
Never stop doubting, never stop questioning, never,
ever assume you have all the answers. Having all the
answers kills the question itself; renders it lifeless —
and you, too…
Keep looking, keep seeking. Never, ever find it all.
Because when you find it all, you deny that there is
more. And there is never not more.
“As soon as we become comfortable with what we know and assume that there is nothing more which could be known, we are not evolving anymore.”
Truer words were ne’er spake!
I love the Scientology concept of the thetan being an awareness of awareness unit. Some people seem to think there are is a finite end to the things of which we can become aware. For me, Scientology is a stepping stone to all and any knowledge which awaits in the universe or the minds of other thetans! Maybe for a lot of people Scientology got them “into the box”, but for me, it got me “out of the box”! I actually did learn to think for myself, (finally), and for this I am very grateful to LRH.
I think when you have found the right path for you, you tend to let all other philosophies go by the wayside….that’s what happen to me anyway.
When I knew I was truly there I had no charge, no ill will against the people or things in my past, it’s like I didn’t have a past…For me that has been the way I KNOW I’m on the right path for me and never been happier.
All paths will lead to truth in the end. 🙂
I’m grateful to LRH too.
Only pity is, he was obsessed with the monopolization of his philosophy and truth of the matter is, you can’t stop a thought.
Too much effort went in the direction of monopolization.
What we see today (the collapse of the SCN Organization) is actually a proof that you can’t stop a thought.
I think there is little security and comfort for someone 60ish with no retirement, healthcare, or marketable skills.
All that the bubble of Scientology provides is delusion mixed with certainty, a toxic combination.
Just wondering if anyone ever came across Groupo Elron? I come across all kinds of information in my search.
To me, it seems that the discrepancies that we find littered throughout scientology are due to the creator of the subject evolving or devolving himself, depending on how you look at it.
It is evident that scientology didn’t arrive in Ron’s consciousness “fully baked”. He had a few ideas and seems to have used these to postulate new ideas. and so he continued. It was an exercise in the exploration of the mind and spirit.
I think problems set in when someone viewing the subject assumes it is a “unified theory”. It does not help that Ron himself forwarded that notion.
Perhaps one way to look at it is to go beyond the whole concept of the subject of scientology, as a philosophy, a religious philosophy, a religion, or whatever, and simply look at the whole lot as a unique look into the mind and times of a man boldly trying to find answers to some of the same questions that each of us may have asked, at one time or another. Perhaps look at it as a journal of Ron’s explorations and ideas, and you will get to see how those explorations deeply effected and changed the man himself, and those around him, for better or for worse.
It is an “epic” tale.
True is the aspect of peeling this layer by layer. I’ve found myself reading other materials and, inadvertently or not, comparing datums with Scn ones.
Is like False Data Stripping which, in fact, would be a good tool to desensitize the numerous ingrained Scn datums. And, as with any other subject, select what is truthful/useful to oneself.
In addition to what you have noted as the reason why this occurs I have often wondered if this ‘only’ datums stuck as they were aligned with the concept of help. One wanted to help oneself and others, and making it the ‘only’ subject of help made it stick harder.
You have also the affinity aspect; this was, at least originally, done with the intention to better oneself and others and I have also wondered how much this affinity point aided in making datums stick so strongly.
Personally I was looking for knowledge and how to help others but, have to admit I fell into the trap of believing this was the unique way to do so.
Creation is infinite, almost like an eternal flow; thus studying/practicing can continue as long as one is willing to change, improve and transcend. It is when the flow gets stuck that one ends with no personal choice and into a structured belief system.
Acording to L Ron Hubbard Scientists are on earth due to the fact of an Darwinian Theory Implant.
THIS WAS Before he wrote OT 3 !!!
Years ago, while in the confidential course-room during one of my interminable “6 month checks”, a fellow student pointed to several people, obviously not scientologists, passing by the windows. and whispered to me “They haven’t a clue, do they?” I nodded and smiled knowingly. We both had swallowed another draught of the brew Marty writes about above.
That fellow student is still “in”, now a zealot saturated with thought-stopping arrogance. It is sad, pathetic and dangerous.
I don’t think it is necessarily implied in the blog post that “people who are not negative regarding scientology are incapable of thinking outside its constructs,” as Eustace commented. However, he may have been looking at what was NOT said. I can’t see that there is anything in the post that directly indicates there is any truth or value in scientology other than “the comfort and security that type of system lends to adherents.” And I doubt anyone reading it would get the idea from it that Scientology has any real worth, whether the reader already knew anything about it or not.
At the same time, the course itself sounds great.
The trouble with the Robert Burton Video (posted by Alanzo) is that Burton goes from one logical conclusion to the next and then suddenly introduces a total ‘red herring” (an illogical twist that makes no sense at all). Mr. Burton has never played baseball as his assertion that the pitched baseball
can travel so fast that the human eye cannot perceive it quickly enough to hit the ball is just wrong. The man who can hit the ball may have no idea how he does it – he just does. I have a dog that can catch a ball in his mouth that I drop without warning and according to Burton the ball falls too fast for the dog to perceive let alone open his mouth in time. But the dog can do it every time.
I saw a program on baseball umpires one time. The umpires had to make decisions on events that occurred faster than the human eye can perceive. But the decisions were seldom wrong. How did they do it? They used their ears rather than their eyes. Which sound came first the foot hitting the base or the ball being caught in the mitt? Mr. Burton has no idea that there are many more perceptions than just seeing in the human or animal experience. And there is no doubt that we are much more than just measurable chemical reactions in the brain.
It is good to look and try to make sense of things and Mr Burton has at least tried. But to take a completely ill informed statement (like the one about base ball) and assert it as being some kind of undeniable scientific fact is just wrong. That kind of thinking will take you down a disastrous wrong path
especially in so called Science. Just take a look at the wondrous “Alice Through the Looking Glass” kind of twisted – fantastic imaginary and impossible world that came from the great Genius Mind of Albert Einstein as an illustration of what can happen.
Such a beautiful article !
Thanks Marty for pointing out an obvious………….
Organizationally, scientology in its totality is a fraudulent form of mental and spiritual slavery sold as total freedom.
According to his own theories, Hubbard is burning in some kind of next-life hell. He’s also a little bit late to coming back to reclaim his throne. Isn’t is about 27 years now?
Where’s Tug One?
Well in an ultimate sense, sure. Everything I perceive is due to my own action. And action within my own mental construct. “Mocked up” in the scientology sense.
You just don’t like to discuss, do you. But..
You Said “…the scientology tenet that if it isn’t written or spoken by L. Ron Hubbard it is not true nor worth knowing. ”
Now this may be part of the scientology culture, but it is not part of the written work of Hubbard that are the tenets of scientology.
What you presume me to be mocking up is unclear to me.
1. Mock-up is derived from the World War II phrase which indicated a symbolized weapon or area of attack. Here, it means in essence, something which a person makes up himself.
2. A mock-up is more than a mental picture; it is a self-created object which exists as itself or symbolizes some object in the MEST universe. It is a thing which one can be.
3. A full perceptic energy picture in three dimensions created by the thetan and having location in space and time. Now, that’s the ideal definition.
4. We call a mental image picture a mock-up when it is created by the thetan or for the thetan and does not consist of a photograph of the physical universe.
5. Any knowingly created mental picture that is not part of a time track.
(from Tech Dictionary)
Peter Turner wrote:
I have a dog that can catch a ball in his mouth that I drop without warning and according to Burton the ball falls too fast for the dog to perceive let alone open his mouth in time. But the dog can do it every time.
What a cool dog! That would be a great youtube video!
For me, the main idea that I got from the video was that the feeling of certainty was a feeling.
As a feeling, certainty can be just as suspicious, and able to be questioned, as anger, or fear. And should be
As a feeling, it can be a red flag that calls for careful scrutiny whenever it emerges.
It can even be laughed at when a Scientologist says to you, “I don’t have religious beliefs (sneer), I have KNOWLEDGE!”
This is the totality of your take away from the original piece?
I have this twisted thought regarding Ron reincarnating:
He’s born, grows up, gets obsessively attracted to Scientology, gets auditing and originates that he is L.Ron Hubbard.
Then he gets off loaded as a Type 3.
Michael Fairman wrote:
That fellow student is still “in”, now a zealot saturated with thought-stopping arrogance. It is sad, pathetic and dangerous.
I agree. And I don’t think a person who wasn’t in the Sea Org, or part of Staff in general, really understands how dangerous it can be.
George Orwell spent his whole career after World War 2 writing about this, trying to convey how an ideologue is created, what ideology does to people, and the danger ideologies can be to a free society.
Here’s the thing: George Orwell was a hero of mine, and I’d read many of his books and essays BEFORE I got into Scientology – some more than once. And I became exactly that arrogant as a Scientologist, and exactly that sad and pathetic ANYWAY.
Some people still think I’m sad, pathetic and dangerous. But at least I understand what George Orwell was trying to convey now.
Heaven help him if he’s critical of anyone like the cob. By his own policies now he’d be an SP, too!
Bring on da book!
Great post Les. Your quotes illustrate the point as well. To draw the conclusion that this is sociopathic and arrogant think, is valid because a door has been opened to view it that way. Plenty of social intercourse beneath us to cast this idea as valid.
However, I think it is also true that most people involved with the supernatural and even groups that serve others, become most enthusiastic about their worth to society.
I know for a fact the Christians think that Christ and giving yourself over to Christainity is the only hope for mankind. The Catholics consider themselves the only hope. The Jews think they are the only hope for mankind. So do the Muslims, and a host of other avenues for supernatural exploration, and public service. Frankly, even the Board of Education. The local police department, and the U.S. Marines. The Salvation Army and the Nation of Islam.
Personally, I believe it is the farmers. They feed these people that grow up, and keep them fed.
Thank you for that Alanzo. Yes, thinking is good 🙂
Actually, the farmers and the mothers. The lives of every man woman and child on the planet depend on what the farmers do. Because people can live with out a lot of things, but not food.
Women are the authors of mankind. Anyone who wants a life on this planet is going to have to enter through a woman’s thighs. Without more people arriving with newer resources for thinking and ideas, there would not be much of a civilization here.
We have become accustomed in our society to discount the value of the farmer and the housewife / mother as too “ordinary”. Against the backdrop of characters applauded for being extraordinary.
But when we speak of the hope of mankind, and the dependency of mankind, it is right there. The farmer and the women.
Oh the happiness we can feel,
little girls on scholastic wheels
making every sentence rhyme
touching words, keeping time.
Little girls, they do not not mind
the debt they carry for our kind,
a tu tu and some patent leather,
a uniform for any weather.
This is the power we possess
for tomorrow’s holiness.
Yet, we guess and guess and guess
– is she holy, or possessed?
All the future we can know
lies beneath her dancing toes.
Any man to cause us harm
lies hidden in her tiny palm.
Every wise man who ever lived
came from her want and whirl…
If we care to heal the world
raise men to care for little girls.
Marty, It just never ceases to amaze me (I don’t take it for granite) that you put into words the exact delineation of what I have learned after leaving scientology. And it’s not just you – your commenters make it even more clear. After leaving and beginning to shed a few layers of ‘the only way’, I first saw that I was doing that. I was taking every single thing that happened in my life and comparing it to scientology and when I was stumped I’d think “What would Ron do?”
Well we all have come a long ways. Don’t forget to give your self a pat on the back 🙂
Thank you for all you are doing.
Lady Min: “Maybe for a lot of people Scientology got them ‘into the box’, but for me, it got me ‘out of the box’!”
I’ve said the same exact thing and it’s good to read someone else who had the same experience.
Of COURSE I think women are the hope of mankind! SEEE? Even ME!
Who is getting David Miscavige through the Life Orientation Course?
Monique Rathbun that’s who!
Who has been a force to be reckoned with fighting back against his oppression?
Karen De Lacarrier
And a host other women too numerous to mention. Almost all of the Class Xll’s at the base were women.
Women ARE the cogent hope for mankind Les. As long as they are kept alive by farmers.
Hi Eustace, I reread the article as I did not “hear” that implication on my first read. Am not finding it in the text or what is suggested by the text. Is there a specific part that prompted your thoughts in that direction?
Your question led me to reflect. I do think there is some truth to a slightly different version of your statement: a person who is incapable of having anything but positive thoughts (i.e., someone who cannot brook any negative thought or criticism) about Scientology quite probably is stuck within its constructs.
A person in that situation has either swallowed the whole deal hook, line, and sinker — or has just not yet been exposed to the full range of experiences and exploitations of Scientology.
Scientology is not a yes/no proposition in my view. It has some parts that I greatly admire and am interested in. It has other parts that frankly should send some people to jail. It has some parts that may stand up to objective research, and other parts that are patent nonsense to an educated person.
Perhaps a healthy stance toward Scientology is for any person to consider it both holistically and in particulate form, and be willing to critically examine it and demand verifiable research and analysis for both the whole and the parts.
izzysson, an interesting point is that after being in SO when I was 24 till I was 43 I truly did not feel I had aged. I was slim and in very good physical health (gave birth to daughters twice in the Hollywood Inn with no midwife or doctor, ran 3 times a week to top of Hollywood Mt and back fr complex) but after I left staff (and still a scientologist) I aged quite rapidly.
There was always such a state of emergency run on staff that there really was not time to think about anything other then post, essential 2D duties and room cleaning. When I left staff I started to question – it basically came down to either I am wrong & church is right or I am right & church is wrong. I am sorry that anyone would ever think that they are the one that is wrong. A very sad place to be and I truly hope my friends left behind do not get stuck there.
I seriously doubt that there are many 60ish with a single thought of insecurity, retirement, healthcare or skills in the SO. I hope that if this is the case they will up and leave ASAP once those thoughts arise.
Schorsch is raising a lot of valid points. On the subject of Einstein, though, he was definitely challenged by others. At first there was a lot of disbelief in relativity. Then it was demonstrated experimentally (starlight displacement due to curved space-time measured during an eclipse and the Michelson-Morely experiments that showed speed of light c was constant regardless of relative direction of observer).
But Einstein hotly debated quantum mechanics. In the first half of the 20th century, Einstein and other physicists hotly disagreed and debated. That’s the nature of true science (which of course does have to rise above politics and human nature). There’s a good short video on the Bohr-Einstein debates at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bDB4Wfp7PM).
I should say relative motion (not direction) of the observer, and when I say “he was definitely challenged” I mean Einstein.
One story of the destruction of the ancient library of Alexandria in Egypt is reported as this:
Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the 13th century, quotes Omar [a caliph who reportedly ordered the destruction] as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī: “If those books [in the library at Alexandria] are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them.” (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria).
This very same sort of absolutism of authority, coupled with a presumed monopoly on truth and knowledge, pervades Scientology.
If Scientology ruled the world, could the outcome be any less horrific for the accumulated knowledge of humankind that befell the library at Alexandria all those centuries ago — the loss of which helped tip Europe into the Dark Ages?
Having painted Scientology into the corner of being a religion, having donned the priests’ collars, and having put up the eight-pointed Crowley cross, Hubbard and his acolyte descendants forfeited any claim to being a science or scientific.
What they are left with is the blind arrogance of true believers who would not dream of putting the theories and practices to scientific scrutiny, for that level of search for truth would be “invalidating.”
And when someone goes on a rampage like this, it discounts the value of others. Plenty of groups out there discount the value of other people and other groups by pushing their own as the vital one.
It IS a two terminal universe. That means nobody has any value without somebody else. Not on this planet. It takes two to procreate.
People think Christ spread his values and wisdom on this Earth. He never wrote one memo.
At least Hubbard didn’t say the only hope was HIMSELF. He said, OURSELVES.
Yes I know how Scientologists tend to get into Spiritual supremacy and it becomes a ser fac. But I do not think it is because of Scientology. I see that as humanity. Groups tend to do that, it is a ser fac, and it does make them rights and others wrong. Hubbard did not create this mechanism in people. And if he dramatized it, he did ser fac, he had ser facs. Just like other people.
Just like actors and singers need approval from bodies to survive, (fans), so did Hubbard. He got fans. It was all good and everyone was happy until he DEMANDED fans and DEMANDED approval. And he created the ethics officer and the Sea Org.
And I think that was a bigger mistake and a larger character flaw than the “hooray for our side” group madness people tend to get into. It is very common and I do not think it = sociopath. If he was so arrogant, I do not think he would have resorted to demanding and enforcing fans and allegiance. I think he was needy, frightened and paranoid more than people knew. But he was also plowing into places nobody else had gone before. Just following him there, exploring our minds and souls, with guidebooks, has been a burden far too great for most of the curious.
I don’t think framing him up as holy or evil has been very beneficial to people.
He was a thinking man that lived life on his own terms. Those were HIS terms, not mine. Some people chose to live on HIS terms and found it did not work for them. No surprise there! But when you are guest in someone else’s home, you are in their house on THEIR terms. He began to see the Orgs as his house. He was greedy and controlling. A lot of men become greedy and controlling and they hunt command and conquer.
I see a lot of people that choose to live and think on Hubbard’s terms. This is a BORROWING. When they are quite done borrowing and willing to assume life on THEIR terms, they feel like they escaped something.
Well, they did. Someone else’s mindset. They just tend to forget the part where they ENTERED by CHOICE of THEIR OWN, that mindset they just escaped from.
This is not peculiar to Scientology or Scientologists. It is pretty routine on Earth, it is called letting other people do your thinking for you. Do you have any idea how many followers Kim Kardashian has on twitter?
I didn’t let Hubbard doing my thinking for me, and this is not because I am a “product” of Scientology. And I did not let Scientologists do my thinking for me either. And I did not let people do my thinking for me BEFORE I got involved with Scientology.
Culturally, I was just way too far removed from the people involved to even think one of them could think for me. And there are billions out there just like me. I can assure you the Sea Org will not take over the planet. Not this year, not any year.
All of that aside, Hubbard did do some intelligent and interesting things with the psychometry. He was brilliant and courageous when it came to exploring the supernatural. And I feel no desire to discount his value as a thinking man living life on his own terms. Most people who got involved had the same attitude when they were permitted to be curious. Their attitude shifted when they were forced to comply. I have just been wholly non compliant.
“Disagree and go free”, worked for me.
what is scientology?
it’s just a word, that means knowing how to know.
As Brian said in an earlier post, we were studying & applying Hubardology hidden under the word “scientology”.
It’s ironic that ex scientolgists are actually scientologists. LOL
once the fish in dianetics realize the shadows are just words,
they are free to go beyond the words spoken by the only one who managed to pull it off. LOL
I am thinking two valid points of view are occuring.
One says: you can still be free of cult “only way” mentality and still appreciate Scientology as a written work, and some true knowledge. And very experiencial.
Without the blinders.
(BTW, I completley disagree with Jon Atak when he says “‘all” auditing is hypnosis. How can a realization of life, which does happen in auditing be anythink but sacred. It can be hypnotic, but it sometime yielded magic.)
And one says: but that was not the point of my blog. My blog had nothing to do with the good stuff in scientology. But it is the brainwashing that needs to be resolved through direct knowing.
There will always be some truths that the Ole Man said. But for me , personally, I had to feel a bit of outrage when it hit me. Its was after my allowing myself to be pisses at Ron, that I learned to forgive him and thank him for a wild ass dream.
They are both true.
No. Certainly not.
I certainly realize you are addressing your points to the scientology culture. You’ve audited, you know there is some efficacy to the ideas, yet you are recently taking a adversarial stance against “scientology” as if scientology was composed only the interpretations used by the abusive.
In fact “scientology” is very vague description of any part of the subject or even the whole.
In whole it is a combination of very interesting and workable ideas and a totally wacky culture derived from the misunderstanding of Hubbard.
Right now it suits you to align with the negative gestalt…a few years ago you were the cheerleader for an independent scientology.
It is interesting to watch your awakening to the larger world.
My main point is that you are forwarding a view of scientology that is mostly comprised of your continuing self insight, but that is not necessarily a view that fits others experience of scientology or their estimation of its value.
And this is good, but not any sort of ultimate truth about the subject.
Warning against it to the easily abused is noble. Deriding the subject as not fit to consider, because of its dangers of mental entrapment is the opposite.
Scientology was a model of thought about life that has many valuable lessons and many pitfalls. It surely boosts scientologist estimation of their own importance to ego maniacal levels, but it also has simple techniques and ideas that help people to understand themselves and their lives.
As I’ve said before, it’s been a long time since I was really a scientologist, but I feel the need to rein in your inaccuracies at times.
Hubbard never insisted his word was it. And in fact many times warned people not to accept anything other than their own observations.
Throw KSW back at me, I don’t care. Thats my view.
“If you look at something like Keeping Scientology Working and read about stamping out of existence unworkable technology (My wording, I don’t have the original with me)”.
Your addition between parentheses exemplifies that scientology instills its “self thought police system” thoroughly. To me that came across as apologizing for giving out verbal data, while you were simply paraphrasing a point in ksw 1 we all can easily understand.
Whose GPM, LOL
Hubbards or your own? And does such a thing exist? LOL
Or does it exist for Hubbard only.
when one believes something is there, and others don’t
that is called crazy.
when many believe something is there, it is called real.
Hubbard said it alright. And he got us to believe something was there, a reactive mind.
But, the numbers speak for themselves, how many church members are there in actuality?
We are not talking about how few members donate big bucks.
There is a difference.
Money donated does not equal membership.
I know you know this. LOL
CD, IIRC you are a Dutchie, right? Were you ever in? About two decades ago I had the privilege to speak with a Dutch veteran scientologist Hank Laarhuis on a couple of occasions. He was at first very reluctant to talk about the old days; worked closely with Otto Roos, Livingston, mayo etc. directly under LRH. But man, he had some stories to tell once he felt safe and comfortable with me. At that time I could hardly believe my ears. I think I had blocked that knowledge completely out until later years when I met another prominent and highly trained class VIII auditor. I think my seeds of doubt that I had repressed after Hank surfaced back and never quite left me. And still, I continued for another 5 years or so. Damn scientology is as sticky as German made superglue.
Well said. I think a lot of what gets labeled as “Scientology” is in fact Sea Org cultural memes. The subject itself provides adequate admonitions against blind acceptance. See http://elysianchakorta.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/how-to-study-scientology/
What happens in the Sea Org culture, by observation of its members’ conduct, is something that’s specifically warned against in the subject itself:
“There are two ways Man ordinarily accepts things, neither of them very good. One is to accept a statement because Authority says it is true and must be accepted, and the other is by preponderance of agreement amongst other people.“
What is interesting is that Hubbard also created the Sea Org culture. Having not been in the Sea Org myself, it would be interesting to see Sea Org issues that directly contradict the above, and thus lay bare any duplicity.
“Never regret yesterday, life is in you today and you make your tomorrow.” LRH
This single LRH quote perhaps helps one to NOT be a victim; however, it also creates a person who cannot and will not look at the REGRETTABLE things one has done during ones life.
And without being able to view regrettable actions as regrettable how then does one not repeat them or grow from them or atone for them?
I surely don’t know. But I do know without the ability to experience a sense of regret, what exists instead are zombie-like human beings destined to stay huddled together in a group of blinder-like lock stepping.
Scientology is not finite. It is a body of scientific research data designed so that as we gain more certainties through application and using that correct data more vistas open up. This is the way of the scientific method, and it expands knowledge. It is the way LRH designed its function.
It is hard for me to fathom what other’s are considering Scientology, The Church, the organizations, those are just byproducts that can be changed/removed. They aren’t necessary for the continued evolution of Scientology. The entire products of Scientology are well trained auditors and happy pcs (not verbatum) and that is the ONLY reason the orgs are supposed to be there. When they do not deliver they will vanish. It is set up that way.
The only way we lose Scientology is not applying what we know. It could die out in a couple of generations if we do not continue to produce auditors. It could die out with an attitude that Standard Tech is in a box, that it can’t expand or develop, and that anyone who expands it is a squirrel.
Very interesting video — thx for sharing.
Thanks. Again, you make evaluations of me that are simply not accurate, but in fact are more accurately descriptive of yourself. To wit, My main point is that you are forwarding a view of scientology that is mostly comprised of your continuing self insight, but that is not necessarily a view that fits others experience of scientology or their estimation of its value. Your ‘main point’ is flat out wrong. It is based on application and observation of result with thousands of people, Scientologists and not, inside and out of the scientology culture. Your continuing self-insight is welcome; to the extent it discontinues mischaracterizing my life it is appreciated.
Your Book/course is definitely needed. There are scores of good souls with damaged thought patterns who will need it. If it can reduce the recovery time, well done.
A good part of the menace of scientology is that time-tested works of wisdom were mixed in and repackaged as source material along with it’s handful of original material, and gave it the appearance of “all truth”. As is suggested by Crashing Upwards I read the references mentioned in Science of Survival and on the Phil. Doc. Lectures (Crowley) long ago.
My personal handle was to lob-off any reference to, or use of, anything scientology as a means of cleansing and unplugging the power and control it had over me, and others, sub-consciously. Anything of truth naturally re-surfaced, without assignment. But it took a long time even with those methods to get the “natural” life back. BTW, readers, there are many powerful and robust path s to meaningful and lasting insight out there. If you don’t have time for going back to school check the library for digital college lectures on World Philosophies or The Meaning of Life for a good overview of other things you might be pulled towards…without being declared by society. 🙂
I just wanted to say one thing. In the church ALL (not some) of the O/W’s that staff acquired on me, all the staff and public involved had the time and money to do their O/W’s to me IN WRITING. IN WRITING so there could be no MU. BUT, when it “came time to address the issue” ALL the “handlings” were VERBAL, all of them. Since when does anything in Scientology that is written require “the verbal handling”. Those people got what they deserved except the never quite woke up to the fact! 🙂
There is more chance of those who are NOT negative regarding Scientology being capable of thinking out side its constraints than those who ARE negative.
Good old Donald!
I got involved with Scientology because of the need for UNDERSTANDING in an effort to help a friend. The Registrar (Mary Long) pointed out to me that if I was going to help my friend I would have to understand the subject first. So I started on the “Introductory Lecture” and then “The Personal Efficiency Course”, Cycles of Action – ARC Triangle – Tone Scale, etc., and I am still using these techniques to this day, and that was nearly fifty years ago.
You mention Logic 8, “a datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude”. My problem is that where in the world do you go to find a datum of comparable magnitude to LIFE IS A STATIC or THE AWARENESS OF AWARENESS?
I think Scientology serves as a stable datum for a lot people – which is not a negative point. In a world full of contradicting theories and never ending overwhelming mass of information it is very convenient to just take one philosophy and stick to it. And just ignore the rest as one has enough to learn in Scientology – so many courses, lectures, … gheee … and then one gets out of Scientology and there it is again: this huge amount of confusing informations, knowledge from other philosophies and with their own nomenclature which sound sometimes pretty weird, some expressions are even in other languages and that is even more weird. It’s just too overwhelming to jump into it and try to understand it, too, after just having left that other system ….
It’s a point of having the time and energy to dive into those philosophies and plow through various nomenclatures or just go the convenient way, not getting overwhelmed, just sticking to Scientology – confusion handled.
And if someone tries to shake this stable datum “Scientology” one fights to death that it is correct as one does not want to confront this huge confusion in the field of knowledge, philosophies, religions, mysticism. There is just too much of real bullshit which needs to get separated out of the functioning true information that really helps on one’s own way. And e.g. a mother with 3 kids and a full time job or a father working flat out to get the rent paid it is a huge task.
Marty, if this course is made “easy” and there are a lot comparisions like Clear is comparable with …. in tibetian buddhism or christ mysticsm etc. that would be quite something! But I guess that is really work for a whole life time.
I have noticed people deep in the Church structure do not age. Not physically, but mentally. I think it is not unusual for a woman or a man to not begin to show age until they are 50. That is really not unusual.
But you talk to someone, say just 30, who just left the Sea Org after 15 years. You will feel like you are talking to an 11 – 13 year old kid.
Even if you watch the videos of the X wives on Anderson Cooper, they sound juvenile. As if they did not have time to develop their own voice. “You’re Rude!” “I knew every inch of his body”.
A Sea Org chick knowing every inch of her husband’s body? Get Real! Highly unlikely. When I was in the Sea Org, every chick that was scheduled to get married was crying on my desk for advice. Seriously pre wedding traumatized. There was NOBODY for them to talk to. Not just women getting married for the first time, women getting married for the THIRD time!
So introverted and frightened and worried about every little thing.
You would be surprised how many women never touched their husband.
They weren’t sure if it would come up as a with hold.Also questions about birth control, hygiene, everything! There was just nobody to talk to these girls about anything. Make up, sex, hair color, hair styles, nails, stockings, feminine products. The female camaraderie was almost non existent. And they even had these conversations with me as if in some deep conspiracy. WHISPERING! Late at night cornering me in my office. Showing up at my apartment in the middle of the night looking like hunted animals! Women in their late 30’s!
I looked like hell when I left the Sea org. When I went in I thought I couldn’t be any thinner. I was wrong. I was skeletal with dark circles under my eyes that took several weeks of sleep to get rid of. I took trips to visit family and when being picked up from the airport, they could not find me in the airport because they did not recognize me. My family members were HORRIFIED at the way I looked.
The abuse, demands, can’t haves, and stress put on women in the Sea Org is so unholy, it is despicable. Hubbard did not outlaw children. That came from David Miscavige. Yes, I had women throw themselves on my desk that were pregnant. I gave them money to leave. One woman was CMO and the Church kept her sitting on the curb, literally folks, while they used her husband for WEEKS before they would let go of him. One woman was expecting TWINS and sick as a dog and they kept her husband auditing in the HGC for MONTHS and would only let them go a few weeks before she was to deliver! Probably so they would not have to pick up the hospital tab. They were willing to let her DIE in her room. That isn’t all.
David Miscavige set up this whole structure on illegal children. No family time. Running a Can’t Have on children. Can’t have parents, can’t have family. Can’t have mother. Can’t have father. How brilliant. Not. It has backfired publicly.
Don’t you think people who are not involved in Scientology know how abberated it is to run can’t have’s? They know.He isn’t getting over on anyone except people who choose to block out valuable information.
I can totally relate to this post Crashing! I also want to add that you don’t really know what Scientology IS until you step out and look at everything – good, bad ugly. See what people have discovered about LRH, his family, what Hubbard was doing and having other Scientologists to that was carefullly hidden from view or masked, especially to the public. I know with total certainty what Scientology IS NOT…and for me, it was not a road to Spiritual Freedom – it was a road to HELL. I never met one Scientologist that was spiritual or physically free. A hamster wheel would appropriately describe Scientology to me. The end product I experienced were people that arrogantly thought they knew everything about life and the spirit. I did not experience any love, true care or compassion. The spirit was dead and people were robotic.
Here’s my problem with Scientology.
The good in Scientology – which is certainly there – is used as bait to hook a person to the bad in Scientology – which is also certainly there.
So a person who has little experience with Scientology – Raw Meat as Hubbard called them – will not be able to see the bad parts of Scientology which they are being led to with the good parts.
Only after decades of working with the subject, and after much damage from the bad parts of Scn, and free and open Internet discussion with others who have experience with both parts of Scientology, does a person learn to avoid the bad parts.
This means that new people are totally vulnerable to the bad in Scientology as it is written and presented by L Ron Hubbard. The bait is “nothing is true for you unless you have observed it yourself. That is all”.
The hook is “We will not speculate here how it was I rose above the bank…blah blah This is a deadly serious activity. blah blah Every man woman and child blah blah.”
The hook above is the first thing you read on every single course in Scientology. The hook has ethics gradients and justice actions attached to it if you do not comply. The hook can destroy your family, bankrupt you and get you fired and everything you built as a Scientologist destroyed if you do not bite on it hard.
Yet there are no ethics gradients or justice actions for you if you fail to follow the Creed, or “Personal Integrity”.
See how that works?
The whole artificial Scientology environment that Hubbard built around a Scientologist is filled with socially coercive and operand conditioning techniques that act as an onslaught on the Scientologist to force them to bite on the hook HARD.
So, tell me.
What good is the good in Scientology if it is only used as bait to hook you to the bad?
Not good at all.
On the whole, when taken together, there is more bad in Scientology than good. And new people (Raw Meat) are susceptible to that bad more than anyone else.
Therefore, on the whole, when taken together, Scientology – as created, developed and maintained by L Ron Hubbard – is a public danger.
That is all.
Karma’s a bitch!
“Never regret yesterday, life is in you today and you make your tomorrow.” LRH
Re-reading this was one of my turning points out of Scientology. On the surface, it appeared to me as a relevant truth necessary for survival. In the end, I saw it as conceit, surely a fetter.
George M. White
I think the pendulum is going to swing. Far left, far right, far left, far right. Yesterday he was a genius. Today Hubbard is a mad man. People swing left and right for a while. It happened with Rock and Roll too. The shock of a sudden influence can be overwhelming in society. Look at Elvis censored on Ed Sullivan because he had rhythm.
“If Scientology ruled the world, could the outcome be any less horrific for the accumulated knowledge of humankind that befell the library at Alexandria all those centuries ago — the loss of which helped tip Europe into the Dark Ages?”
FOTF2012, Yep, you can take that one to the bank.
BTW, Alexandria’s library was destroyed twice. Once by Islam and once by the Pope.
It is my opinion that a lot of Vedic literature was destroyed there.
Google the Kaaba Siva temple.
Google Muhammad’s uncle a Siva devotee and priest of the Kaaba.
Talk about crushing out history.
I like this approach Marty. Even if a person wanted to be “a good Scientologist” (I don’t) then it would probably strengthen them if they could look at other ideas and compare and analyze them against what they know. It could give them more certainty.
I see truth in what you say. LRH created a body of data and that body of data has some use. It could be considered a stepping stone. It helped me to rise to a higher level. Can I now go to other levels higher? I believe so. Even if I didn’t go to a higher level, I could at least go to another different level and might add something to my mental and spiritual tool box.
Excellent comment Sylvia.
Thanks. To answer your question, I believe you have been writing here for some time finding data of comparable magnitude in Christianity. Am I wrong? On your friend, whatever became of your relationship?
Thank you very much Marty, your writings have been an invaluable source of enlightenment. You are doing a great job about opening people’s minds and helping others to really move up a little higher.
I also had read 1984 before and never the less fell into the trap, bth I am reading it now for the 2nd time and I am horrified at the thought that I chose to be blind on my own will without the use of force by an exterior agent. It is not MKultra brain washing , it is simple disconnecting your ability to think for your self by progressive indoctrination in which you accumulate points of agreement and progressively discard all other points of view.
It is just a problem of LANGUAGE, fundamental reality remains the SAME, just different observers, using different languages to articulate what they see.
There is more chance of those who are NOT negative regarding Scientology being capable of thinking out side its constraints than those who ARE negative.
How so, Pip?
In my experience, those who are NOT negative regarding Scientology think almost totally within its constraints. They often apply Scientology reasoning and rarely if ever see the many contradictions Hubbard introduced into the subject.
Those who are NOT negative seem to have an astounding ability to forget one side of Hubbard’s contradiction in one instance, and then use the other side in another instance – completely oblivious to what they are doing.
In other words, talking to people who are NOT negative regarding Scientology, I see an overwhelming use of double-think:
You mention Logic 8, “a datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude”. My problem is that where in the world do you go to find a datum of comparable magnitude to LIFE IS A STATIC or THE AWARENESS OF AWARENESS?
In the Upanishads:
A course in graduating from scientology
Introduction – Part I
One of the most difficult traps that scientology creates for minds is that of creating an arrogant sense of certainty in the member.
This is true of every group of people who come together with a shared reality.
It is ultimately the ceiling that keeps people beholden to scientology, afraid to explore outside of it, and thus serves to entrap them within its own limitations.
Every man-made philosophy/religion has a “ceiling” because of the very nature of the human mind.
What makes it so binding for scientologists is that they are taught that such an attitude has that effect at the outset of their studies. That is, the first barrier to learning is the student thinking he already knows it.
The belief that one already knows something before studying it surely is the first barrier to learning.
Scientologists apparently never think that the datum might apply once they had learned all there was to know about the subject that taught them that very datum.
The idea that there comes a time when one knows all there is to know about Scientology is alien to me, if the definition of Scientology is “knowing in the fullest sense of the word through study”.
That type of tricky dichotomy is peppered throughout the subject. It is one thing that makes reasoning, discussion or debate on scientology so confounding.
I have never found this dichotomy in Scientology; it has always been “does it work” which is the acid test of knowledge.
A scientologist is only permitted to view the subject within the parameters of its own nomenclature, constructs and logic. He must never permit the thought to enter his own mind, ‘is there more to life than I have been instructed?’
It is important to differentiate between Scientology and a Scientologist. A Scientologist is “one who has found a way to a better life, by studying the writings of L.R.H.” That is a very subjective thing, BETTER is like beautifulness and ugliness, it is in the eye of the beholder.
As we shall see as we progress, scientology is finite.
“Scientology is finite” Where is this datum coming from? Is it stated anywhere in the material or is this your opinion Marty? In the prefix of Ron’s early books there was always a list of thinkers from the past that were acknowledged. I know of nowhere that Ron has said Scientology stands alone, separate from all other thought systems, but rather it is the bringing together of centuries of accumulated knowledge.
It consists of the words of one man who wrote and lectured on the subject between the years 1950 and 1986. By firm policy scientology enforces the notion that those thirty-six years of observations by one man are all that need be known on the mind and spirit and a host of other subjects. It even instills the idea that to think or explore outside of the box of Hubbard words is dangerous.
These attitudes that you mention are down to Scientologists, not Scientology.
In the book Force vs Power David R. Hawkins succinctly described how such mental mechanics generally obtain:
“The truth of each level of consciousness is self-verifying in that each level has its native range of perception, which confirms what’s already believed to be true. Thus, everyone feels justified in the viewpoints that underlie his actions and beliefs.”
On this quote from “Force vs Power” again I see nothing amiss with that, so long as “it works” for the person. One should remain justified as long as these viewpoints “WORK FOR YOU”.
Presumably, the reader has to some degree shaken the scientology tenet that if it isn’t written or spoken by L. Ron Hubbard it is not true nor worth knowing.
Again this is not a “Scientology tenet” but it may be a view that SOME Scientologists hold.
Otherwise, why would you even pick up a book entitled Graduating from scientology?
I agree that SOME Scientologists might not but on the other hand some might.
Nonetheless, in my experience the notion of fully self-contained infallibility is so heavily implanted with scientologists that it tends to come off in stages or layers.
I am sure this is true for SOME Scientologists.
It is common for scientologists, and even former scientologists, to continue to weigh any new data they encounter on the mind and spirit against a hidden standard, ‘how does it measure up against what scientology holds?’ Measuring up is not the problem.
I see nothing unusual about comparing “new data” with what they have already learnt in Scientology. I do not see why this should be a “hidden standard” for everyone, but may well be a “hidden standard” for SOME, as you say “measuring up is not the problem”.
Our course of exploration is all about comparing and contextualizing scientology indoctrinations.
Your course as you say is aimed at “Scientology indoctrinations”. Wikipedia informs me that “in common discourse indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations. How exactly can one have a course of exploration if it starts with a “negative bias”?
It is a virtual exercise in Hubbard’s Logic 8:
I don’t understand the difference between an exercise and “a virtual exercise”. Would it not have been enough to say “it is an exercise in Logic 8?
“a datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude”
To use Logic 8 in isolation to the rest of the Logics will inevitably skew the conclusion.
The problem arises when your mind is trained to work on an automatic default (read thought stopping) where any data, no matter how vital and workable,
You refer to “your mind is trained to work on an automatic default” since the “your” refers to the readers mind it pre-supposes this is true for everyone reading your thread when in fact it may not apply to everyone.
……. is discredited and discarded to the degree it does not agree with one’s scientology indoctrination. Scientologists come to know about scientology and in the process are convinced that they know all there is to know.
“one’s scientology indoctrination” implies “all Scientologists are indoctrinated”. Again not ALL Scientologists “come to know about scientology and in the process are convinced that they know all there is to know”.
That is a perfectly normal state of affairs for a monotheistic, religious belief system. For those seeking the comfort and security that type of system lends to adherents, you would be well advised to drop this book right about now. This course of exploration is for those who never signed up for such when they embarked on scientology study. This exploration is for those who got involved in scientology from the beginning as part of a search for truth, wisdom, and enlightenment.
This indeed is a perfectly normal state of affairs for a monotheistic, religious belief system, but I would suggest that if someone reading this is looking for comfort and security they have come to the right place, for if they are dissatisfied with what they have found in Scientology then here they can find an alternative for comfort and security by applying “a virtual exercise” in Hubbard’s Logic 8. For any datum of comparable magnitude will, if embraced, move them side wards into another “nice little tight belief system”.
If one is really dedicated to a search for truth, wisdom and enlightenment then my advice would be go further into Scientology in the certain knowledge you will come out the other side, so long as you don’t compromise with your own reality. There is a light at the end of the tunnel and it doesn’t have to be a train coming the other way.
The Hindus and the yogis do not think they are the only way.
The pagans, actually the Hindhus, were crushed out of history like demonic squirrel.
The mother of all religions was burned at the stake by prejudice and murderous religious hate. Google Will Durant: 80 million Hindhus slaughterd.
L Ron Hubbard created demons out of the competition. Just like what the desert religions did with India.
Pagan, heretic and squirrel are linguistic weapons of mass destruction. Giving true believers holy writ to harm the demonized competition.
Since the discovery of GPM was the result of the protracted work done by many others, not only Hubbard, during the time of the Briefing Course, a period of many years and many pc’s I’d say it’s pretty well documented that there is something there. Call it whatever you like, the data on it is empirical.
My own GPM’s are my own creations, Hubbard’s are his.
Pingback: Awakening – Part II | Moving On Up a Little Higher
FOTF2012: “Hi Eustace, I reread the article as I did not “hear” that implication on my first read. Am not finding it in the text or what is suggested by the text.”
There’s a thing called “implication by omission.” That is what is “heard” in the article IF one has ears to hear that band of frequency.
We’ve been watching a “reality show” called “Long Island Medium” and it’s been extremely cathartic for me in recognizing, inspecting, analyzing and reevaluating my Scn fixed ideas regarding spirituality, helping others on a spiritual level, family life and how the dynamics of such play out in real life.
Looking forward to this book…
Thank you for this analysis and contributing these astute observations.
Dissafected I was Nnver in, Thank you for telling your story, Nice to hear you had someone eventually willing to tell you insider stuff.
I was flabergasted too when I red Wise Old Goat’s page about L Ron Hubbard regarding Darwinian Theory Implant Including actual snippets of lectures given by L Ron Hubbard:
Quotations from L. Ron Hubbard® on the theory of evolution
This explains the occasional wisdom of the uneducated backwoods fellow.
You are both wrong and right. There are many similarities between Scientology and Christianity and both can be used by “those seeking the comfort and security” but I see neither as fulfilling that function.
Bonny Woods is a classic example of a person moving side wards from Scientology to Christianity, once she was a Scientologist now she is a Christian. It may well be that when one finds a datum of comparable magnitude in another discipline one has to either denigrate it or switch disciplines. All “only ways” cannot tolerate competition.
I am not a Scientologist or a Christian and equally am both a Scientologist and a Christian. Hence the only label I feel comfortable with is a ChristianScientologist, and as such there is no datum of comparable magnitude. A ChristianScientologist understands LOVE and loves UNDERSTANDING. It might be said that ChristianScientology embraces the datum of datums.
Yes ‘my friend’ that is a long story. She did study Scientology and we lived together and produced two children. By which time I was well and truly declared. In an effort to comply with St Hill’s wishes I got married to Pam (the lady in question) but it was not a match made in heaven and she quite quickly struck up a liaison with a gentleman she met in a pub. It seems she felt he could offer her “comfort and security” so off she went.
I am still experiencing the fallout from that through my two eldest children, and I am now a Great Grandfather. Thanks for asking.
I would agree with you most Scientologists think mostly within its constraints, but that is true of any “only way” man-made system. The knack is to know more about the subject than they do. Actually you don’t even have to know more than they do, you only need the ability to listen and ask the appropriate questions.
Those that are negative about Scientology are more difficult to handle because they may spot you are using the com. cycle and assume that you must be NOT negative towards Scientology and then they want to go out of communication.
WILLING EFFECT IS TOTAL CAUSE – works every time.
Thanks Alanzo but all you have done is move sideways. All the data you point out confirm the datums in Scientology. It is just Scientology in a different ‘nomenclature’.
Here is what I consider a datum of comparable magnitude that can actually move a Scientologist a little higher “Love is a mystery – the greatest mystery there is. It can be lived, but it cannot be known, it can be tasted, experienced, but cannot be understood. It is something beyond understanding, something that surpasses all understanding.”
That’s what I call a “datum of comparable magnitude”
Love and ARC
I am glad you could find or create a comfortable synthesis.
Thanks for the links CD….. crazy gets redefined every time I learn more facts about Scientology and its founder.
If u haven’t seen this earlier, its worthwhile to check the testimony of Otto Roos as relayed by J. Atack. Note how Otto remained a believer in the tech despite all the horrible atrocities committed on him and around him on a routine basis. Reading this piece of Marty reminded me of my encounter with Hank and how much my brain was bleached too and how many bad things about scientology automatically got repressed in my mind. I am just starting to shed off the first layers of Scientology instilled thought systems. I shudder every time I realize how much of that crap is still in me. But at least I have reached the conclusion that I don’t know everything that is to know, and am ready to learn and truly find out for myself through myself.
Forgot to post the actual link to Otto’s story. Seems I can’t post it as a working link like yours. Please copy and paste in your browser.
Thanks for your thoughts, marildi.
Eustace, I am sincerely interested in understanding in a little more detail what you heard.
Wow. We humans do have a penchant for destroying knowledge and rewriting history. You’ve reminded me of the Chinese emperor who wiped out preceding history and the Nazi book burning rallies too. (Kaaba siva/shiva — fascinating.)
I’m glad you are glad
I want to say that I admire that you are addressing, asking questions about, and even challenging the ideas you are being presented with on Marty’s blog.
Hubbard did not allow this, and it is the fundamental reason that Scientology is a cult. It’s what makes all other Scientology abuse possible.
This tradition of criticizing ideas, of public scrutiny and questioning, must never be allowed to even suffer in Independent Scientology.
I hope that people like you and Marildi and Oracle and Eustace are questioning your fellow Independents as much as you are questioning Marty. You would be going against much of the cultural values of Scientology by doing so, but those are the cultural values which made Scientology a cult.
So I hope you are doing it.
And I hope that your fellow independents are as tolerant of this questioning in their own domains as Marty now is on his blog.
This is the true test of whether Independent Scientology will end up being any better than L Ron Hubbard’s Church of Scientology.
Do you agree, or not?
““Love is a mystery – the greatest mystery there is. It can be lived, but it cannot be known, it can be tasted, experienced, but cannot be understood. It is something beyond understanding, something that surpasses all understanding.”
That is not a Scientology datum.
Not in the least.
In fact, it is the fact that this datum does not exist in Scientology which should be “compared”.
First, there are no “mysteries” in “Scientology”. The word Scientology itself does not permit any, and the claim is made that Scientology produces total knowledge, total responsibility, and total control.
A “mystery” is something to be cleared away in Scientology, something that is unnatural to a “thetan”, and something to be overcome.
A mystery is certainly nothing to be embraced in Scientology. Yet your quote says that love is a mystery, and that love, as a mystery, is something to be embraced.
You know the reference to “True Love” in the PTS/SP rundown materials, right?
This is how your “datum of comparable magnitude” compares to the data expressed in Scientology: It’s not there.
That’s my application of Logic 8 to your datum of comparable magnitude with something in Scientology.
Or is that your point?
No wonder they said you were an SP!
Mostley people keep believing in Auditing, even John McMasters did
Thanks for your post. I like to think I can still use my critical faculties. The dictionary defines critical in two distinctly different ways, one positive and one negative. Hopefully Marty knows the difference.
I think it is a little unfair to say LRH did not allow people to challenge his ideas, it is just that he “got too big for his boots”, probably through thinking he could “pull himself up by the straps”. It’s no different to some celebrities who become so popular that they think they are made of something more special than the rest of us and then they become a cult figure.
It’s a great idea that it might be different in the Independent field but that is wishful thinking. It has taken me about 10-15 years to be accepted by the Independent field basically because I will not take sides in the Independent vs The Church debate.
I take that as a real compliment that you would associate my name with Marildi, Oracle and Eustace. Although I am not an Independent I am an INTERDEPENDENT (I just made that up). Those in the Church are DEPENDENT, those out of the church are INDEPENDENT, and I am INTERDEPENDENT. It is like being other-determined, self-determined and pan-determined.
There is nothing wrong with Scientology it is just a body of knowledge. The problem lies in Scientologists and that includes L Ron Hubbard. Scientology puffs up the ego as does any body of data that has secrets. ACIM says “you are as sick as you have secrets” Need I say more!
I neither agree nor disagree, I hear what you say and think you make a lot of valid points.
Love and ARC
I never said it was a Scientology datum. That is my point. In the piece I quote it is pointing out the difference between LOVE and UNDERSTANDING. Now understanding is very much a “Scientology datum”, however when it is compared with love, there IS no comparison, hence it is NOT A COMPARABLE DATUM, so in Scientology terms what to do? If it cannot be compared it can only mean one of two things, either the datum is “long gone insane” or it belongs to another dimension and if it belongs to another dimension it requires a “paradigm shift” to a dimension that can embrace a mystery.
The reason there are no Mysteries in Scientology is it only deals in CERTAINTIES, even the NO to MYSTERY SCALE stops short of MYSTERY. It isn’t that Scientology does not permit mystery it’s just that as a subject it explores certainties and mystery is outside its remit. I am not sure Scientology claims TOTAL ANYTHING that’s just a nice idea to “keep the punters happy in THE CHURCH”.
As I have said A THETAN is the EXPRESSION OF THETA. Theta is MYSTERY and a THETAN IS MYSTERY EXPRESSED (the story) you can study the story but you can only SURRENDER to the MYSTERY.
No I don’t know this reference to “TRUE LOVE” I would appreciate it if you could let me have it.
“It’s not there because it belongs to a ‘higher dimension’” – yes that is my point!
Regards from your ever-loving SP friend
i guess the word ‘beliefs’ is not the right word- it should be replaced by perspective, the word ‘ beLIEf ‘ means nothing else than non-substantial inapplicable inappropriate hypocrite corrupted self-&others deluding state of mind!
Yesterday I started studying the Upanishads , what a great well of wisdom and useful information! My dad used to explain the most important ones to us when I was a teenager (he was a pundit). Sadly I didn’t pay much attention to it. Had I done it, I’m pretty sure I would not have felt to urge to get involved with Scientology.
Pingback: Awakening – Part III | Moving On Up a Little Higher
Could you appreciate that the poster was concerned about being accurate, quoting policy accurately? Why would you assume, “we all can easily understand”?
There’s a lot to be said in favor of remaining true to original writings, of LRH and anyone else one is quoting or attempting to apply or understand. I strongly believe the alteration and perversion of the works of LRH under Miscaviage is a huge force in the destruction of the subject and its practice, and Ron’s original intentions. The growing field of defectors and independent Scientologists likely would not exist if the church would have remained true to its founder’s words.
Seems like the fervor with which many of us once involved ourselves IN and FOR Scientology is now the fervor with which we apply ourselves AGAINST the church. The pendulum has swung.
Yes, I know this comment is two days older than Marty’s posting and the rest of the comments… and that’s unfortunate.
“If you look at something like Keeping Scientology Working and read about stamping out of existence unworkable technology”
In a perfect world, this would be used to correct and improve Scientology. Everything could be looked at, along with accounts of the effects of the unworkable and harmful data in order to understand how it came about.
I can not respond to objections you make on behalf of the poster. You seem to be arguing we should not alter any LRH writing. So therefore I shall adhere to: “HCOPL Verbal Tech: penalties” . But I find this line of reasoning a real thought stopper.
Yeah, I noticed that many do. However we nowadays have access to the internet and can find data in many fields on a touch of a button. Auditing to me is simply a hypnotic trance.” Whole track” auditing for me is full of total BS. The auditing technique itself installs false memories and you can keep “running” them forever. That’s why REAL scientists like Jung and others have found this sort of therapy pretty much useless. From personal experience on both sides of the E-meter, I can only concur.
Marty, you have come a long, long way. It is obvious you are a determined truth seeker. But do you ever have days when you think, “Fuck, I just don’t know”? Just curious. God, if I met you, I’d want to slap one cheek and kiss the other.
L. Ron Hubbard is not actually saying that.
Quote: “Thanks for the links CD….. crazy gets redefined every time I learn more facts about Scientology and its founder.”
Anything one does not understand or can not place will appear as being crazy.
Marty, thank you so much for this post. I think it’s a wonderful direction. I haven’t read all the posts (in a bit of a hurry, right now and will get to them) but I’ve just completed the book, Messiah or Madman and am about to start reading Barefaced Messiah.
I agree with you, we tend to operate only in the “bubble of Hubbard reality”, a quote from the book. We are forbidden to look at anything other Scientology and we are ealry brainwashed and stopped from conducting ‘other practices’. Etc. The brainwashing we’ve had is so subtle, it takes a while to see it and understand that it’s happened and how.
Great on the work you’re doing and all your wins and energy expended for, mainly, our benefit. And appreciation for your hardships.